Instead of trying to reduce the greenhouse gasses, what if you could block out the light from the Sun?
Dr. Roger Angel from the University of Arizona has calculated that a solar shade 2000 km (1,250 miles) across would block enough radiation from reaching the Earth to reduce the warming effects of carbon dioxide emissions back to industrial levels.

Hehe solar radiation is good.
We need to stop burning fossil fuels. ;) It's time to move on.
I wish all the oil deposits of the world would dry up, tomorrow.
____________/MavWe have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.
(Carl Sagan)

Instead of trying to reduce the greenhouse gasses, what if you could block out the light from the Sun?
Dr. Roger Angel from the University of Arizona has calculated that a solar shade 2000 km (1,250 miles) across would block enough radiation from reaching the Earth to reduce the warming effects of carbon dioxide emissions back to industrial levels.

I've already got a solar shade that size......my mother in law.
____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I read a book last month "Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" by Thomas Gold. It was interesting and although it seem that he tried to denounce organic matter as the source of oil he had some ligitimate arguments as to an alternative oil source. The idea was that methane was completely infused into the original formation of the earth and was compressed. Over time, the methane was compressed into longer chain coupounds that we know as oil. This idea is readily verifiable in the lab by compressing methane and checking it from time to time and yes, indeed it will form longer chain organic compounds. He had explanations as to where the oil was coming from when a oil well suddenly refills. Of course his theory and work would explain why there is oil where there sould be none because it predates orgainic (living) matter being present in that particular stratum. Organic does not mean living but is used as such. The point being that there may be a lot more oil than we realize if this is in fact a(nother) source of oil.

Hydrogen is a clean source of energy but it does not have the compressibility of other fuels in that you literally don't get the same bang for the buck. I'm not sure that being able to store it on carbon cages will do much. In a system like a car, the carbon could do a lot of damage. That is probably the biggest reason why it will not be a common source of power. Not to mention that it takes too much energy to create the hydrogen in the first place. Currently, using hydrogen as a fuel source actually polutes more than octane because of the hydrogen as to be produced in the first place. That means drawing a lot of power from the grid which mostly uses coal, methane and oil.

Nuclear energy is the obvious choice for electricity because we are simply speeding up a natural process in a controlled way. The problem is that we put all the radioactive material together instead of having it mixed throughout the earth. Solar power and wind power are cool and should be used but they are highly inefficient when it comes to nuclear energy.

The next phase will most likely be dominated propane, methane, and nuclear energy. Two of which, do nothing to prevent global warming if the particulate waste is filtered off.

If we are to decrease CO2, we need an effective method for creating the fuels while consuming CO2. Beat me with a stick because I don't know how to do that. If someone figures it out, cha-ching!

Instead of trying to reduce the greenhouse gasses, what if you could block out the light from the Sun?
Dr. Roger Angel from the University of Arizona has calculated that a solar shade 2000 km (1,250 miles) across would block enough radiation from reaching the Earth to reduce the warming effects of carbon dioxide emissions back to industrial levels.

Its an interesting idea and a good read but I don't think its an awnser, the real awnsers lay here fimly on terra. Clean energy, conservation, and simply accepting the fact that the Earth goes through cooling and warming trends and thats just life. Saddly like most things our ability to persue these things is limited by the all mighty dollar. Think about how many science projects have not been persued simply becuse of money?
____________

Its an interesting idea and a good read but I don't think its an awnser, the real awnsers lay here fimly on terra. Clean energy, conservation, and simply accepting the fact that the Earth goes through cooling and warming trends and thats just life. Saddly like most things our ability to persue these things is limited by the all mighty dollar. Think about how many science projects have not been persued simply becuse of money?

I think that it'll take care of itself. As the world starts to warm, the oceans warm, the internal structure warms and this might cause the earth to shift around more from the internal heat and pressure. P=(nRT)/V represents generally how materails respond to temperature, particularly gases. A 1 degree shift up is a multiplier to (nR/V) which is a constant in this case. Thus a temperature increase is directly proportional to internal pressure. A volcanice out venting is more likely. A major volcanic eruption spewing ash and SO2 into the atmosphere will send us back into an ice age for sure. We won't need to worry about CO2 at that point.
____________TEAMLL

I think that it'll take care of itself. As the world starts to warm, the oceans warm, the internal structure warms and this might cause the earth to shift around more from the internal heat and pressure. P=(nRT)/V represents generally how materails respond to temperature, particularly gases. A 1 degree shift up is a multiplier to (nR/V) which is a constant in this case. Thus a temperature increase is directly proportional to internal pressure. A volcanice out venting is more likely. A major volcanic eruption spewing ash and SO2 into the atmosphere will send us back into an ice age for sure. We won't need to worry about CO2 at that point.

Ya, I'm pretty sure earth can kick our ass if it wants too. I mean given the fact that something on the order of 99% of the species that have walked the earth no long exsist kind of proves that theory.
____________

Otherwise we won't have idea how the planet is going to be on the next 40 years....

Tiare Rivera.-

From that source: "We are going to face an energy crisis at some point in the future. Itâ€™s not a question of if, but when. There is a high demand on oil, particularly due to a growing global population," said lead author Puru Jena, Ph.D., a professor of physics at VCU.
"We need an energy source that is abundant, cost effective and renewable, burns clean and does not pollute," he said.
------

I'd go with Hydrogen. It's the most common and abundant element in the universe, and it's clean, when you burn it you produce water.
During the combustion of hydrogen in air, energy is released in the form of heat, which to the observer appears as a hot flame. But at a submicroscopic level, the energy is released when the newly formed water molecules are produced in excited vibrational and rotational levels. ;)

Just need to find a way to safely and cheaply store it. Until then we'll have to settle for electric cars, which suck in the HP department. :p

Regards
____________/MavWe have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.
(Carl Sagan)